Transcript

1.
Chapter One
What Postmodernism Is
The postmodern vanguard
By most accounts we have entered a new intellectual age. We are
postmodern now. Leading intellectuals tell us that modernism has
died, and that a revolutionary era is upon us—an era liberated from
the oppressive strictures of the past, but at the same time disquieted
by its expectations for the future. Even postmodernism’s opponents, surveying the intellectual scene and not liking what they see,
acknowledge a new cutting edge. In the intellectual world, there
has been a changing of the guard.
The names of the postmodern vanguard are now familiar:
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and
Richard Rorty. They are its leading strategists. They set the
direction of the movement and provide it with its most potent tools.
The vanguard is aided by other familiar and often infamous names:
Stanley Fish and Frank Lentricchia in literary and legal criticism,
Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin in feminist legal
criticism, Jacques Lacan in psychology, Robert Venturi and Andreas

2.
2
Huyssen in architectural criticism, and Luce Irigaray in the criticism
of science.
Members of this elite group set the direction and tone for the
postmodern intellectual world.
Michel Foucault has identified the major targets: ‚All my
analyses are against the idea of universal necessities in human
existence.‛1 Such necessities must be swept aside as baggage from
the past: ‚It is meaningless to speak in the name of—or against—
Reason, Truth, or Knowledge.‛2
Richard Rorty has elaborated on that theme, explaining that
that is not to say that postmodernism is true or that it offers
knowledge. Such assertions would be self-contradictory, so postmodernists must use language ‚ironically.‛
The difficulty faced by a philosopher who, like myself, is
sympathetic to this suggestion *e.g., Foucault’s+—one who
thinks of himself as auxiliary to the poet rather than to the
physicist—is to avoid hinting that this suggestion gets
something right, that my sort of philosophy corresponds to
the way things really are. For this talk of correspondence
brings back just the idea my sort of philosopher wants to
get rid of, the idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic
nature.3
If there is no world or self to understand and get right on their
terms, then what is the purpose of thought or action? Having
deconstructed reason, truth, and the idea of the correspondence of
thought to reality, and then set them aside—‚reason,‛ writes
Foucault, ‚is the ultimate language of madness‛4—there is nothing
to guide or constrain our thoughts and feelings. So we can do or say
whatever we feel like. Deconstruction, Stanley Fish confesses
Foucault 1988, 11.
Foucault, in May 1993, 2.
3 Rorty 1989, 7-8.
4 Foucault 1965, 95.
1
2

3.
3
happily, ‚relieves me of the obligation to be right < and demands
only that I be interesting.‛5
Many postmodernists, though, are less often in the mood for
aesthetic play than for political activism. Many deconstruct reason,
truth, and reality because they believe that in the name of reason,
truth, and reality Western civilization has wrought dominance,
oppression, and destruction. ‚Reason and power are one and the
same,‛ Jean-François Lyotard states. Both lead to and are synonymous with ‚prisons, prohibitions, selection process, the public
good.‛6
Postmodernism then becomes an activist strategy against the
coalition of reason and power. Postmodernism, Frank Lentricchia
explains, ‚seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of
truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.‛ The
task of postmodern professors is to help students ‚spot, confront,
and work against the political horrors of one’s time‛7
Those horrors, according to postmodernism, are most
prominent in the West, Western civilization being where reason
and power have been the most developed. But the pain of those
horrors is neither inflicted nor suffered equally. Males, whites, and
the rich have their hands on the whip of power, and they use it
cruelly at the expense of women, racial minorities, and the poor.
The conflict between men and women is brutal. ‚The normal
fuck,‛ writes Andrea Dworkin, ‚by a normal man is taken to be an
act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.‛
This special insight into the sexual psychology of males is matched
and confirmed by the sexual experience of women:
Women have been chattels to men as wives, as prostitutes,
as sexual and reproductive servants. Being owned and
being fucked are or have been virtually synonymous
Fish 1982, 180.
Lyotard, in Friedrich 1999, 46.
7 Lentricchia 1983, 12.
5
6

4.
4
experiences in the lives of women. He owns you; he fucks
you. The fucking conveys the quality of ownership: he
owns you inside out. 8
Dworkin and her colleague, Catharine MacKinnon, then call
for the censorship of pornography on postmodern grounds. Our
social reality is constructed by the language we use, and pornography is a form of language, one that constructs a violent and
domineering reality for women to submit to. Pornography,
therefore, is not free speech but political oppression.9
The violence is also experienced by the poor at the hands of the
rich and by the struggling nations at the hands of the capitalist
nations. For a striking example, Lyotard asks us to consider the
American attack on Iraq in the 1990s. Despite American propaganda, Lyotard writes, the fact is that Saddam Hussein is a victim
and a spokesman for victims of American imperialism the world
over.
Saddam Hussein is a product of Western departments of
state and big companies, just as Hitler, Mussolini, and
Franco were born of the ‘peace’ imposed on their countries
by the victors of the Great War. Saddam is such a product
in an even more flagrant and cynical way. But the Iraqi
dictatorship proceeds, as do the others, from the transfer of
aporias [insoluble problems] in the capitalist system to
vanquished, less developed, or simply less resistant
countries.10
Yet the oppressed status of women, the poor, racial minorities,
and others is almost always veiled in the capitalist nations. Rhetoric
about trying to put the sins of the past behind us, about progress
and democracy, about freedom and equality before the law—all
such self-serving rhetoric serves only to mask the brutality of
Dworkin 1987, 63, 66.
MacKinnon 1993, 22.
10 Lyotard 1997, 74-75.
8
9

5.
5
capitalist civilization. Rarely do we catch an honest glimpse of its
underlying essence. For that glimpse, Foucault tells us, we should
look to prison.
Prison is the only place where power is manifested in its
naked state, in its most excessive form, and where it is
justified as moral force. < What is fascinating about
prisons is that, for once, power doesn’t hide or mask itself;
it reveals itself as tyranny pursued into the tiniest details; it
is cynical and at the same time pure and entirely ‘justified,’
because its practice can be totally formulated within the
framework of morality. Its brutal tyranny consequently
appears as the serene domination of Good over Evil, of
order over disorder.11
Finally, for the inspirational and philosophical source of
postmodernism, for that which connects abstract and technical
issues in linguistics and epistemology to political activism, Jacques
Derrida identifies the philosophy of Marxism:
deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in
my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within
the tradition of a certain Marxism in a certain spirit of
Marxism.12
Modern and postmodern
Any intellectual movement is defined by its fundamental
philosophical premises. Those premises state what it takes to be
real, what it is to be human, what is valuable, and how knowledge
Foucault 1977b, 210.
Derrida 1995; see also Lilla 1998, 40. Foucault too casts his analysis in Marxist
terms: ‚I label political everything that has to do with class struggle, and social
everything that derives from and is a consequence of the class struggle, expressed
in human relationships and in institutions‛ (1989, 104).
11
12

6.
6
is acquired. That is, any intellectual movement has a metaphysics, a
conception of human nature and values, and an epistemology.
Postmodernism often bills itself as anti-philosophical, by which
it means that it rejects many traditional philosophical alternatives.
Yet any statement or activity, including the action of writing a
postmodern account of anything, presupposes at least an implicit
conception of reality and values. And so despite its official distaste
for some versions of the abstract, the universal, the fixed, and the
precise, postmodernism offers a consistent framework of premises
within which to situate our thoughts and actions.
Abstracting from the above quotations yields the following.
Metaphysically, postmodernism is anti-realist, holding that it is
impossible to speak meaningfully about an independently existing
reality. Postmodernism substitutes instead a social-linguistic,
constructionist account of reality. Epistemologically, having rejected
the notion of an independently existing reality, postmodernism
denies that reason or any other method is a means of acquiring
objective knowledge of that reality. Having substituted sociallinguistic constructs for that reality, postmodernism emphasizes the
subjectivity, conventionality, and incommensurability of those constructions. Postmodern accounts of human nature are consistently
collectivist, holding that individuals’ identities are constructed
largely by the social-linguistic groups that they are a part of, those
groups varying radically across the dimensions of sex, race,
ethnicity, and wealth. Postmodern accounts of human nature also
consistently emphasize relations of conflict between those groups;
and given the de-emphasized or eliminated role of reason, postmodern accounts hold that those conflicts are resolved primarily by
the use of force, whether masked or naked; the use of force in turn
leads to relations of dominance, submission, and oppression.
Finally, postmodern themes in ethics and politics are characterized
by an identification with and sympathy for the groups perceived to

7.
7
be oppressed in the conflicts, and a willingness to enter the fray on
their behalf.
The term ‚post-modern‛ situates the movement historically and
philosophically against modernism. Thus understanding what the
movement sees itself as rejecting and moving beyond will be
helpful in formulating a definition of postmodernism. The modern
world has existed for several centuries, and after several centuries
we have good sense of what modernism is.
Modernism and the Enlightenment
In philosophy, modernism’s essentials are located in the formative
figures of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and René Descartes (15961650), for their influence upon epistemology, and more comprehensively in John Locke (1632-1704), for his influence upon all
aspects of philosophy.
Bacon, Descartes, and Locke are modern because of their
philosophical naturalism, their profound confidence in reason, and,
especially in the case of Locke, their individualism. Modern
thinkers start from nature—instead of starting with some form of
the supernatural, which had been the characteristic starting point of
pre-modern, Medieval philosophy. Modern thinkers stress that
perception and reason are the human means of knowing nature—in
contrast to the pre-modern reliance upon tradition, faith, and
mysticism. Modern thinkers stress human autonomy and the
human capacity for forming one’s own character—in contrast to the
pre-modern emphasis upon dependence and original sin. Modern
thinkers emphasize the individual, seeing the individual as the unit
of reality, holding that the individual’s mind is sovereign, and that
the individual is the unit of value—in contrast to the pre-modernist,

8.
8
feudal subordination of the individual to higher political, social, or
religious realities and authorities.13
Chart 1.1: Defining Pre-modernism and Modernism
Pre-modernism
Modernism
Metaphysics
Realism: Supernaturalism
Realism: Naturalism
Epistemology
Mysticism and/or
faith
Objectivism: Experience
and reason
Human Nature
Original Sin; subject
to God’s will
Tabula rasa and
autonomy
Ethics
Collectivism:
altruism
Individualism
Politics and
Economics
Feudalism
Liberal capitalism
When and
Where
Medieval
The Enlightenment;
twentieth-century
sciences, business,
technical fields
‚Pre-modernism,‛ as here used, excludes the classical Greek and Roman
traditions and takes as its referent the dominant intellectual framework from
roughly 400 CE to 1300 CE. Augustinian Christianity was pre-modernism’s
intellectual center of gravity. In the later medieval era, Thomism was an attempt to
marry Christianity with a naturalistic Aristotelian philosophy. Accordingly,
Thomistic philosophy undermined the pre-modern synthesis and helped open the
door to the Renaissance and modernity.
On the use of ‚modernism‛ here, see also White (1991, 2-3) for a similar linking
of reason, individualism, liberalism, capitalism, and progress as constituting the
heart of the modern project.
13

9.
9
Modern philosophy came to maturity in the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment philosophes quite rightly saw themselves as
radical. The pre-modern Medieval worldview and the modern
Enlightenment worldview were coherent, comprehensive—and
entirely opposed—accounts of reality and the place of human
beings within it. Medievalism had dominated the West for 1000
years, from roughly 400 CE to 1400 CE. In a centuries-long
transition period, the thinkers of the Renaissance, with some
unintended help from the major Reformation figures, undermined
the Medieval worldview and paved the way for the revolutionaries
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By the eighteenth
century, the pre-modern philosophy of Medieval era had been
routed intellectually, and the philosophes were moving quickly to
transform society on the basis of the new, modern philosophy.
The modern philosophers disagreed among themselves about
many issues, but their core agreements outweighed the disagreements. Descartes’s account of reason, for example, is rationalist
while Bacon’s and Locke’s are empiricist, thus placing them at the
heads of competing schools. But what is fundamental to all three is
the central status of reason as objective and competent—in contrast
to the faith, mysticism, and intellectual authoritarianism of earlier
ages. Once reason is given pride of place, the entire Enlightenment
project follows.
If one emphasizes that reason is a faculty of the individual,
then individualism becomes a key theme in ethics. Locke’s A Letter
concerning Toleration (1689) and Two Treatises of Government (1690)
are landmark texts in the modern history of individualism. Both
link the human capacity for reason to ethical individualism and its
social consequences: the prohibition of force against another’s
independent judgment or action, individual rights, political equality, limiting the power of government, and religious toleration.
If one emphasizes that reason is the faculty of understanding
nature, then that epistemology systematically applied yields

10.
10
science. Enlightenment thinkers laid the foundations of all the
major branches of science. In mathematics, Isaac Newton and
Gottfried Leibniz independently developed the calculus, Newton
developing his version in 1666 and Leibniz publishing his in 1675.
The most monumental publication in the history of modern
physics, Newton’s Principia Mathematica, appeared in 1687. A
century of unprecedented investigation and achievement led to the
production of Carolus Linnaeus’s Systema naturae in 1735 and
Philosophia Botanica in 1751, jointly presenting a comprehensive
biological taxonomy, and to the production of Antoine Lavoisier’s
Traité élémentaire de chimie (Treatise on Chemical Elements) in 1789,
the landmark text in the foundations of chemistry.
Individualism and science are thus consequences of an
epistemology of reason. Both applied systematically have enormous
consequences.
Individualism applied to politics yields liberal democracy.
Liberalism is the principle of individual freedom, and democracy is
the principle of decentralizing political power to individuals. As
individualism rose in the modern world, feudalism declined.
England’s liberal revolution in 1688 began the trend. Modern
political principles spread to America and France in the eighteenth
century, leading to liberal revolutions there in 1776 and 1789. The
weakening and overthrow of the feudal regimes then made
possible the practical extension of liberal individualist ideas to all
human beings. Racism and sexism are obvious affronts to
individualism and so had been increasingly on the defensive as the
eighteenth century progressed. For the first time ever in history,
societies were formed for the elimination of slavery—in America in
1784, in England in 1787, and a year later in France; and 1791 and
1792 saw the publication of Olympe de Gouges’s Declaration of the
Rights of Women and Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the

11.
11
Rights of Women, landmarks in the push for women’s liberty and
equality.14
Individualism applied to economics yields free markets and
capitalism. Capitalist economics is based on the principle that
individuals should be left free to make their own decisions about
production, consumption, and trade. As individualism rose in the
eighteenth century, feudal and mercantilist arguments and
institutions declined. With the development of free markets came a
theoretical grasp of the productive impact of the division of labor
and specialization and of the retarding impact of protectionism and
other restrictive regulations. Capturing and extending those
insights, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is the
landmark text in the history of modern economics. Theory and
practice developed in tandem, and as markets became freer and
more international the amount of wealth available increased
dramatically. For example, N. F. R. Crafts’s estimates of British
average annual income, accepted by both pro- and anti-capitalist
historians, show a historically unprecedented rise, from $333 in
1700 to $399 in 1760, to $427 in 1800, to $498 in 1830, and then a big
jump to $804 in 1860.15
Science applied systematically to material production yields
engineering and technology. The new culture of reasoning,
experimenting, entrepreneurship, and the free exchange of ideas
and wealth meant that by the mid-1700s scientists and engineers
were discovering knowledge and creating technologies on a
historically unprecedented scale. The outstanding consequence of
this was the Industrial Revolution, which was metaphorically
picking up steam by 1750s, and literally picking up steam with the
The application of reason and individualism to religion led to a decline of faith,
mysticism, and superstition. As a result, the religious wars finally cooled off until,
for example, after the 1780s no more witches were burned in Europe (Kors and
Peters 1972, 15).
15 Measured in 1970 U.S. dollars; Nardinelli, 1993.
14

12.
12
success of James Watt’s engine after 1769. Thomas Arkwright’s
water-frame (1769), James Hargreaves’s spinning-jenny (c. 1769),
and Samuel Crompton’s mule (1779) all revolutionized spinning
and weaving. Between 1760-80, for example, British consumption of
raw cotton went up 540 percent, from 1.2 to 6.5 million pounds. The
rich stuck to their hand-made goods for awhile, so the first things to
be mass-produced in the new factories were cheap goods for the
masses: soap, cotton clothes and linens, shoes, Wedgwood china,
iron pots, and so on.
Science applied to the understanding of human beings yields
medicine. The new approaches to understanding the human being
as a naturalistic organism drew upon new studies, begun in the
Renaissance, of human physiology and anatomy. Supernaturalistic
and other pre-modern accounts of human ailments were swept
aside as, by the second half of the eighteenth century, medicine put
itself increasingly on a scientific footing. The outstanding consequence was that, combined with the rise in wealth, modern
medicine increased human longevity dramatically. Edward Jenner’s
discovery of the smallpox vaccine in 1796, for example, both
provided a protection against a major killer of the eighteenth
century and established the science of immunization. Advances in
obstetrics both established it as a separate branch of medicine and,
more strikingly, contributed to the significant decline of infant
mortality rates. In London, for example, the death rate for children
before the age of five fell from 74.5 percent in 1730-49 to 31.8
percent in 1810-29.16
Modern philosophy matured in the 1700s until the dominant
set of views of the era were naturalism, reason and science, tabula
rasa, individualism, and liberalism. The Enlightenment was both
the dominance of those ideas in intellectual circles and their
translation into practice. As a result, individuals were becoming
16
Hessen 1962, 14; see also Nardinelli 1990, 76-79.

14.
14
Postmodernism versus the Enlightenment
Postmodernism rejects the entire Enlightenment project. It holds
that the modernist premises of the Enlightenment were untenable
from the beginning and that their cultural manifestations have now
reached their nadir. While the modern world continues to speak of
reason, freedom, and progress, its pathologies tell another story.
The postmodern critique of those pathologies is offered as the death
knell of modernism: ‚The deepest strata of Western culture‛ have
been exposed, Foucault argues, and are ‚once more stirring under
our feet.‛17 Accordingly, states Rorty, the postmodern task is to
figure out what to do ‚now that both the Age of Faith and the
Enlightenment seem beyond recovery.‛18
Postmodernism rejects the Enlightenment project in the most
fundamental way possible—by attacking its essential philosophical
themes. Postmodernism rejects the reason and the individualism
that the entire Enlightenment world depends upon. And so it ends
up attacking all of the consequences of the Enlightenment philosophy, from capitalism and liberal forms of government to science
and technology.
Postmodernism’s essentials are the opposite of modernism’s.
Instead of natural reality—anti-realism. Instead of experience and
reason—linguistic social subjectivism. Instead of individual identity
and autonomy—various race, sex, and class group-isms. Instead of
human interests as fundamentally harmonious and tending toward
mutually-beneficial interaction—conflict and oppression. Instead of
valuing individualism in values, markets, and politics—calls for
communalism, solidarity, and egalitarian restraints. Instead of
Foucault 1966/1973, xxiv.
Rorty 1982, 175. Also John Gray: ‚We live today amid the dim ruins of the
Enlightenment project, which was the ruling project of the modern period‛ (1995,
145).
17
18

16.
16
Postmodern academic themes
Postmodern literary criticism rejects the notion that literary texts
have objective meanings and true interpretations. All such claims to
objectivity and truth can be deconstructed. In one version of
deconstruction, represented by those who agree with the quotation
from Fish on page 2 above, literary criticism becomes a form of
subjective play in which the reader pours subjective associations
into the text. In another version, objectivity is replaced by the view
that an author’s race, sex, or other group membership most deeply
shapes the author’s views and feelings. The task of the literary
critic, accordingly, is to deconstruct the text to reveal the author’s
race, sex, or class interests. Authors and characters who least
embody the correct attitudes are naturally subject to the greatest
amount of deconstruction. Nathaniel Hawthorne, for example, in
The Scarlet Letter seems at least ambivalent about Hester Prynne’s
moral status—and this ambivalence reveals that he has sold out to
an authoritarian, conformist, and repressive masculine religious
establishment.19 Or: Herman Melville in Moby Dick may have
thought that he was exploring universal themes of personal and
social ambition, man and nature—but what Captain Ahab really
represents is the exploitative authoritarianism of imperialistic
patriarchalism and the insane drive of technology to conquer
nature.20
In law, versions of Legal Pragmatism and Critical Legal Theory
embody the new wave. For the pragmatist version of postmodernism, any abstract and universal theory of the law is to be
distrusted. Theories are worthwhile only to the extent that they
provide the lawyer or judge with useful verbal tools.21 Standards
Hoffman 1990,14-15, 28.
Schultz 1988, 52, 55-57.
21 Luban 1998, 275; Grey 1998.
19
20

17.
17
for usefulness, however, are subjective and variable, so the legal
world becomes a postmodernist battleground. As there are no
universally valid legal principles of justice, arguments become
rhetorical battles of wills. The Critical Legal Theorists represent the
race, class, and sex version of legal postmodernism. According to
the Crits, legal constitutions and precedents are essentially
indeterminate, and the so-called objectivity and neutrality of legal
reasoning are frauds. All decisions are inherently subjective and
driven by preference and politics. The law is a weapon to be used in
the social arena of subjective conflict, an arena driven by competing
wills and the coercive assertion of one group’s interests over those
of other groups. In the West, for too long the law has been a cover
for the assertion of white male interests. The only antidote to that
poison is the equally forceful assertion of the subjective interests of
historically oppressed groups. Stanley Fish marries the pragmatist
and Crit approaches in arguing that if lawyers and judges come to
think of themselves as ‚supplementers‛ rather than ‚textualists,‛
they ‚will thereby be marginally more free than they otherwise
would be to infuse into constitutional law their current interpretations of our society’s values.‛22
In education, postmodernism rejects the notion that the
purpose of education is primarily to train a child’s cognitive
capacity for reason in order to produce an adult capable of
functioning independently in the world. That view of education is
replaced with the view that education is to take an essentially
indeterminate being and give it a social identity.23 Education’s
method of molding is linguistic, and so the language to be used is
that which will create a human being sensitive to its racial, sexual,
and class identity. Our current social context, however, is
characterized by oppression that benefits whites, males, and the
rich at the expense of everyone else. That oppression in turn leads
22
23
Fish quoting Thomas Grey (Fish 1985, 445).
Golden 1996, 381-382.

18.
18
to an educational system that reflects only or primarily the interests
of those in positions of power. To counteract that bias, educational
practice must be recast totally. Postmodern education should
emphasize works not in the canon; it should focus on the
achievements of non-whites, females, and the poor; it should
highlight the historical crimes of whites, males, and the rich; and it
should teach students that science’s method has no better claim to
yielding truth than any other method and, accordingly, that
students should be equally receptive to alternative ways of knowing.24
Postmodern cultural themes
These broad academic themes in turn inform our more specific
cultural debates.
 Whether the Western canon of great books is a distillation of the
best of the West and reflective of a multi-faceted debate—or
whether it is ideologically narrow, exclusive, and intolerant.
 Whether Christopher Columbus was a modern hero, bringing
two worlds together to their mutual benefit—or whether he was an
insensitive, smugly superior point man for European imperialism,
bringing armed force that rammed European religion and values
down indigenous cultures’ throats.
 Whether the United States of America is progressive on liberty,
equalities, and opportunities for everyone—or whether it is sexist,
racist, and class-bound, e.g., using its mass market pornography
and glass ceilings to keep women in their place.
 Whether our ambivalence over affirmative action programs
reflects a strong desire to be fair to all parties—or whether those
programs are merely a cynical bone thrown to women and
minorities until they seem to be helping, at which point there is a
violent reaction by the status quo.
24
Mohanty 1980, 185.

19.
19
 Whether social conflicts should be defused by encouraging the
principle that individuals should be judged according to their
individual merits and not according to morally irrelevant features
such as race or sex—or whether group identities should be affirmed
and celebrated, and whether those who balk at doing so should be
sent for mandatory sensitivity training.
 Whether life in the West, and especially America, is improving,
with average longevity and wealth increasing in each generation—
or whether Amerika has abandoned its urban underclass and
fostered a bland consumerist culture of shopping malls and suburban sprawl.
 Whether the liberal West is leading the rest of the world to a
freer and more prosperous future—or whether its heavy-handed
intrusiveness in foreign policy and its command of the international
financial markets are exporting its McJobs to non-Western nations,
locking them into the System and destroying their indigenous
cultures.
 Whether science and technology are good for all, extending our
knowledge of the universe and making the world healthier, cleaner,
and more productive—or whether science betrays its elitism,
sexism, and destructiveness by making the speed of light the fastest
phenomenon, thereby unfairly privileging it over other speeds—by
having chosen the phallic symbol i to represent the square root of
negative one—by asserting its desire to ‚conquer‛ nature and
‚penetrate‛ her secrets—and, having done so, by having its
technology consummate the rape by building bigger and longer
missiles to blow things up.
 And whether, in general, liberalism, free markets, technology,
and cosmopolitanism are social achievements that can be enjoyed
by all cultures—or whether non-Western cultures, since they live
simply and in harmony with nature, are superior—and whether the
West is arrogantly blind to that fact, being elitist and imperialistic,

20.
20
imposing its capitalism, its science and technology, and its ideology
upon other cultures and an increasingly fragile ecosystem.
Why postmodernism?
What makes all of these debates postmodern is not that the
skirmishes are vigorous and heated—but that the terms of the
debate have shifted.
Modern debates were over truth and reality, reason and
experience, liberty and equality, justice and peace, beauty and
progress. In the postmodern framework, those concepts always
appear in quotation marks. Our most strident voices tell us that
‚Truth‛ is a myth. ‚Reason‛ is a white male Eurocentric construct.
‚Equality‛ is a mask for oppressions. ‚Peace‛ and ‚Progress‛ are
met with cynical and weary reminders of power—or explicit ad
hominem attacks.
Postmodern debates thus display a paradoxical nature. Across
the board, we hear, on the one hand, abstract themes of relativism
and egalitarianism. Those themes come in both epistemological and
ethical forms. Objectivity is a myth; there is no Truth, no Right Way
to read nature or a text. All interpretations are equally valid. Values
are socially subjective products. Culturally, therefore, no group’s
values have special standing. All ways of life from Afghani to Zulu
are legitimate.
Coexisting with these relativistic and egalitarian themes, we
hear, on the other hand, deep chords of cynicism. Principles of
civility and procedural justice simply serve as masks for hypocrisy
and oppression born of asymmetrical power relations, masks that
must be ripped off by crude verbal and physical weapons: ad
hominem argument, in-your-face shock tactics, and equally cynical
power plays. Disagreements are met—not with argument, the
benefit of the doubt, and the expectation that reason can prevail—
but with assertion, animosity, and a willingness to resort to force.

21.
21
Postmodernism, therefore, is a comprehensive philosophical
and cultural movement. It identifies its target—modernism and its
realization in the Enlightenment and its legacy—and it mounts
powerful arguments against all of the essential elements of
modernism.
The existence of any prominent cultural movement raises
questions of intellectual history. In the case of postmodernism,
independent developments in many intellectual areas—primarily in
epistemology and politics, but also in metaphysics, the physical
sciences, and our understanding of human nature and values—
came together in the middle part of the twentieth century.
Understanding the development of those independent strands and
how and why they came to be woven together is essential to
understanding postmodernism.
Why is it, for example, that skeptical and relativistic arguments
have the cultural power that they now do? Why do they have that
power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why have themes
of exhaustion, nihilism, and cynicism come to have the cultural
dominance they do? And how can those intellectual themes coexist
with a broader culture that is richer, freer, and more vigorous than
any culture at any other point in history? Why is it that the leading
postmodern thinkers are Left in their politics—in most cases, far
Left? And why is it that that prominent segment of the Left—the
same Left that traditionally defended its positions on the modernist
grounds of reason, science, fairness for all, and optimism—is now
voicing themes of anti-reason, anti-science, all’s-fair-in-love-andwar, and cynicism?
The Enlightenment re-shaped the entire world, and postmodernism hopes to do the same. Forming such an ambition and
developing the arguments capable of mobilizing a movement to
realize that ambition is the work of many individuals over several
generations. Contemporary second-tier postmodernists, when looking for philosophical support, cite Rorty, Foucault, Lyotard, and

22.
22
Derrida. Those figures in turn, when looking for heavy-duty
philosophical support, cite Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx—the modern world’s
most trenchant critics and its most prophetic voices about the new
direction. Those figures in turn cite Georg Hegel, Arthur
Schopenhauer, Immanuel Kant, and to a lesser extent David Hume.
The roots and initial impetus of postmodernism thus run deep. The
battle between modernism and the philosophies that led to
postmodernism was joined at the height of the Enlightenment.
Knowing the history of that battle is essential to understanding
postmodernism.
***